April 16, 2016

Len Blonder is a structured settlement pioneer now beginning an unprecedented third term as President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). It may seem counterintuitive, therefore, or perhaps wishful thinking, but one could describe NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference, which occurred April 6-8 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida April 6-8, as a "New Beginning."

Following the transformative leadership of Michael Goodman, NSSTA's immediate past President, however, the opportunity for such a new beginning now exists and the 2016 NSSTA Annual Conference Educational Program outlined some of the future possibilities.

During Goodman's Presidency, NSSTA revised its historic and defensive "protect and preserve" strategy by embracing a new "Growth Initiative" which already appears to have generated new energy and improved "community" spirit. Progress reports for preliminary "Growth Initiative" priorities [re-starting P&C programs; convertible lump sums; and Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) amendment(s)] were all positive. Equally important, the overall theme was forward looking asking: "How can we move forward? How can we change the dialogue?"

Supporting its "Growth Initiative", NSSTA has also expanded its industry outreach and networking with other professional associations. Improved relationships among NSSTA, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has helped unify the structured settlement market. Working together, NSSTA and NASP have added important consumer protection provisions to five state structured settlement protection statutes. As one result, Goodman declared in his Opening Remarks: "we can no longer use factoring as an excuse for not growing the industry."

Len Blonder Presidency

How will Blonder, a 38 year plus industry veteran who, as much as any single individual, has been personally responsible for "protecting and preserving" the tax foundation for structured settlements, respond to NSSTA's current leadership challenges and market opportunities?

"The times are changing and we must change", Blonder stated, as he addressed NSSTA's membership to begin his third term as President. "The business is more complicated. We must determine how the parts fit together. Despite plaintiff growth, defendants remain indispensable to structured settlements. Defendants must continue to play a key role."

Unless NSSTA faces an unexpected crisis, Blonder said his plans for NSSTA include continued industry and community growth. Based upon the preliminary success of the "Growth Initiative", Blonder announced it would become a permanent NSSTA committee and expand its current list of priorities. As a result of recent state legislative successes, Blonder stated he expects NSSTA to spend less time on factoring legislation and more time on judicial education during his term as president.

Among NSSTA's challenges and priorities, Blonder highlighted: growing NSSTA's membership and increasing membership diversity; continuing to improve relationships with outside associations; and improving public relations generally for both NSSTA and structured settlements.

Re-starting P&C Programs

Speaking as part of a panel discussing Property and Casualty Company Program Growth, Richard Woollams, President of Claims for AIG Commercial Insurance, provided a contrarian perspective concerning future structured settlement growth and industry change. Asked to predict what the structured settlement market will look like in five years, Woollams opined: "the same as today with more broker consolidation and better technology."

Woollams also identified reasons why some P&C companies have reduced their structured settlement program participation: "competing priorities; increasing compliance requirements; and inertia". Woollams further challenged NSSTA's membership by stating: "in workers compensation cases, the savings for defendants is obvious. Can you quantify the cost savings with liability cases? Even a couple of points pays for program compliance and administration."

Woollams' challenge concerning "cost savings for liability cases" echoes findings about "metrics and analytics" from a 2011 study (titled: "National Litigation Management Study") commissioned by the Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance (formerly "the Council on Litigation Management") as well as NSSTA's own 2014 survey of Senior Claim Advisors conducted by CLM Advisors.

Based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives, the 2011 CLM Alliance study identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed. Another "key finding" that emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in that 2011 CLM Alliance study: "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them."

Only 20 percent of the participants reported having any set of objectives around the use of structured settlements.

A majority of the participants did not measure referral volume and only half measure the volume of successfully written structures.

Affordable Care Act

A separate NSSTA conference panel discussion about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) titled "Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA and Collateral Source Rule Changes" highlighted one way NSSTA members can utilize structured settlements to quantify potential cost savings for defendants. That being part of an expert team that provides defendants with two-tier (with and without ACA coverage) case specific calculations of future economic damages.

As NSSTA's ACA panel pointed out, the admissibility of ACA coverage for trial purposes (both for evidence and damage calculation) depends upon the common law collateral source rule which not only varies by state, but also is subject to current, state-specific post-ACA legal disputes as to applicability. This contested claims environment, plus the applicable expert damage team recommended by the NSSTA panel (featuring a structured settlement broker), represents both a strategic growth opportunity for NSSTA members as well as a priority for continued in-depth education.

Trusts and Structured Settlements

The NSSTA conference panel discussing "Trusts and Structured Settlements" provided another window for viewing potential structured settlement change and growth. Contrary of traditional structured settlement perspectives, which view trusts as competitive products in a zero sum settlement game, panelist Tim Denehy (who identified himself as a "settlement planner" offering trusts and structured settlement annuities) insisted: "A structured settlement does not solve every problem. However, by offering additional products, I can sell more structures."

NSSTA has been slow to explore and/or embrace the evolving settlement planning profession in which structured settlement annuities, as well as trusts, represent strategic, interactive products. Other professional associations, especially SSP and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), have been more proactive than NSSTA in analyzing settlement planning issues. As more plaintiff brokers offer trusts and other non-structured settlement products, and share commissions with defense brokers, NSSTA should consider helping its members better understand how settlement planning impacts the sale of structured settlements - creating new opportunities as well as risks.

Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims

John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau traced the history and explained the significance of IRC 139F which was enacted December 21, 2015 as part of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). "In the case of any wrongfully incarcerated individual," IRC section 139F provides: "gross income shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter) relating to the incarceration of such individual for the covered offense for which the individual was convicted." Damages paid for wrongful imprisonment, however, which are not derived from a personal, physical injury, are not eligible for an IRC section 130 qualified assignment. Although the exact number of exonerees is not known, McCulloch and Jandreau cited sources estimating approximately 4000 nationally over the past 15 years.

NSSTA DIRECTORS AND AWARD WINNERS - NSSTA announced the election of two Directors: Mal Deener and Ryan Jandreau. In addition, the following individuals were honored during the conference:

President's Award - Debbie Sink

Leadership Award - Susan Clark and Robert Caples

Service to the Industry Award - Andrew McClain

CONCLUSION

Assuming NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference represents a "New Beginning" for the structured settlement industry, the upcoming year will be one of the most important, if not the most important, in NSSTA's history. Based upon his leadership experience and prior accomplishments, Len Blonder appears uniquely qualified to help NSSTA determine how the parts of an increasingly complicated business fit together in order to continue to grow structured settlement annuity sales and improve the lives of personal injury victims.

CORRECTIONS AND OMISSIONS

S2KM began receiving valuable feedback to this blog post almost immediately following its publication. Examples:

The second paragraph under "Trusts and Structured Settlements" above has been changed from what originally appeared in this blog post, at the request of Phillip Krause, to clarify that he used the word "investment" and not the word "professional." Krause explained: "An 'investment fiduciary' is a specific role within the management of a Trust. The Trustee delegates or directs investment decisions to the 'investment fiduciary.' The role of 'investment fiduciary,' is separate from the role of a 'structured settlement consultant.' An investment fiduciary uses registered investments with the SEC/FINRA. A broker dealer may also be involved in the approval of the appropriateness of investments held within the Trust. The oversight by an OSJ or compliance officer is also common."

S2KM could (still might) write an entire blog post about the informative "Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth" discussion moderated by Michael Goodman and Len Blonder and featuring Richard Woollams and David Crowe. Some of Woollams' comments appear in the original blog post. Crowe also offered valuable insights and recommendations for re-starting P&C structured settlement programs including the importance of: 1) identifyinging one or more internal structured settlement "champions"; 2) showing the impact on a P&C's bottom line; 3) defense and plaintiff brokers working together for a more efficient settlement process; 4) attracting bright young professionals to the structured settlement industry - a problem, he stated, is shared more generally by the insurance industry.

November 12, 2014

Although David Ringler was unable to attend the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) 2014 Fall Educational Conference October 29-30 in La Jolla, California, he had an apparent impact. Ringler, NSSTA's first president, previously re-stated his original vision for NSSTA during NSSTA's 25th anniversary celebration in 2011:

"Although we do need to constantly be on the watch for legislative change, I still believe having a place where everyone and anyone can sit down with each other and discuss the issues and viewpoints regardless of beliefs is the most important reason for NSSTA. I have called it a common “talk table”, although I agree that is not exactly a very elegant term. If we can continue this tradition, there is no problem we cannot overcome."

Many industry participants, including some NSSTA members, have questioned whether NSSTA has lost sight of this original purpose and tradition. For the past several years, NSSTA's leadership has superimposed a political litmus test for membership, as well as for topics and speakers at its educational conferences. As one result, structured settlement industry participants with alternative issues, viewpoints, beliefs and educational interests have founded two other national structured settlement associations: the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) in 1996 and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) in 2000.

NASP and SSP Participation

Perhaps responding to Ringler's clarion call, NSSTA opened its members-only educational program in La Jolla by inviting NASP President Patricia LaBorde and SSP President Neil Johnson to speak.

LaBorde was featured on a Secondary Market Panel, moderated by John McCulloch, which also included Stephen Harris and Patrick Hindert as panelists. McCulloch's questions targeted primary market concerns such as the prevalence of secondary market transfers, consequences of transfer company advertising and secondary market discount rates. The resulting discussion captured the audience's undivided attention and hopefully will result in expanded educational dialogue between NSSTA and NASP to include shared political and business interests.

NSSTA and the primary structured settlement market face multiple challenges (see below) - perhaps none greater than succession. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s?

In addition to generating more than $140 billion of annuity premium, the legacy of NSSTA's retiring generation includes enactment of the existing structured settlement legislative framework: current IRC sections 104(a)(1) and (2) and 130 plus multiple state periodic payment of judgment statutes and (with NASP) enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection statutes. More recently, however, NSSTA's aging leadership has focused on defense - with "protect and preserve" its principle mantra.

NSSTA attempted to addressed this generational succession issue at its Fall conference by juxtaposing panels featuring past NSSTA Presidents and "Next Generation" brokers. The impression that emerged: NSSTA and the primary market have reached an historic crossroads - with multiple stakeholders, issues and options, but no clear future direction.

Whatever next generation of NSSTA leaders emerges will face several challenges:

Competition. Within the settlement planning market, the growth and leadership of other product and service providers has increasingly exceeded the growth and leadership of structured settlement participants.

The settlement planning market is knowledge-intense and increasingly Internet-based. To continue, and increase, their historical success within the evolving settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members must improve their knowledge management capabilities. One preliminary step is to identify and evaluate existing strategic knowledge. NSSTA and its members possess three primary types of strategic knowledge:

Product knowledge - The "Tax Posse", the ACA summary, and even the Non-traditional Products presentation at NSSTA's Fall conference represent good examples of NSSTA's product knowledge. Perhaps more important, and more valuable, than explicit product knowledge, NSSTA members possess tacit (intuitive, experiential) knowledge of how structured settlements work. In the context of the secondary market, however, NSSTA member knowledge of its own product is arguably much weaker, and, therefore, incomplete and less valuable.

Relationship knowledge - Much of NSSTA's Fall conference related to, and re-enforced, NSSTA's and NSSTA members' settlement planning relationship knowledge about and with: 1) plaintiff attorneys; 2) insurance associations; 3) insurance claims adjustors; 4) national consumer associations; 5) U.S. Congressional members; 6) MSA administrators; 7) SSP; and 8) NASP. In settlement planning, as in life more generally, it is not what you know but who you know that counts the most.

Market knowledge - Compared with other settlement planning market segments, NSSTA (and NASP) appear to have developed and maintained more accurate market metrics including quarterly and annual premium and cases in total and for each member product provider. To further expand structured settlements into the settlement planning market, NSSTA and its members might begin to track additional metrics. For examples: what percentage of structured settlements are utilized to fund MSAs, SNTs and settlement trusts more generally. Which categories of structured settlement recipients are most likely to sell payment rights and why?

"NSSTA University" - NSSTA's Debbie Sink announced a new "NSSTA University" service whereby NSSTA will partner with any member to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars or insurance claims departments or law firms.

CLM Survey Part II - In partnership with CLM Advisors, NSSTA's Marketing Committee summarized CLM Survey Part II (claims adjustors) of an eventual three part survey project. Part I surveyed claims executives. Part III will survey plaintiff attorneys. These surveys provide NSSTA members with valuable marketing tools for discussions with the audiences surveyed.

March 13, 2014

What impact will the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and related international regulatory developments, have on structured settlement annuity providers?

Proposed Amendment to Dodd-Frank

That issue was indirectly spotlighted this week when Senator Susan Collins (R., Maine) announced progress on a bill that would amend Dodd-Frank to permit the Federal Reserve to exempt insurers from new capital rules for banks.

Although the Federal Reserve has not yet published capital rules for insurers, "the Fed maintains it is required to set minimum capital requirements for insurance companies similar to the standards banks face," according to a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article (subscription required).

Enacting legislation to reopen Dodd-Frank will be difficult, the WSJ article states, because many Senate Democrats fear such a bill would include broader changes and the Obama administration has opposed legislation that reopens Dodd-Frank before it has been fully implemented by regulators.

Many insurers believe "bank-centric" capital rules supervised by the Federal Reserve would require them to increase capital and product prices thereby creating a competitive disadvantage. Structured settlement annuity providers MetLife, Prudential, New York Life, and Mutual of Omaha have joined a lobbying coalition of insurers seeking separate capital requirements that take into account their business model, according to various new sources.

A recent LifeHealthPRO article , however, confirms life insurer expectations for increasing federal and international regulatory supervision quoting Gary Hughes, executive vice president and general counsel of the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) as stating: “In the very near future, a major segment of the U.S. insurance business will have material aspects of its capital structure dictated or influenced by someone other than a state insurance regulator.”

Hughesadded: "life insurance regulation in the U.S. can no longer be viewed as a purely domestic matter” and highlighted the importance of regulatory cooperation, according to the LifeHealthPRO article.

"If the capital standards of the states, the Federal Reserve (FSB), the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) and the European Union are not generally consistent," he stated, "the resulting competitive disparities mainly involving the relative cost of capital will significantly disrupt the U.S. and the global life insurance markets.”

The United States insurance industry historically has been regulated by the states whose regulatory responsibility was reaffirmed in 1945 when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act .

Following the collapse of First Executive Corporation and its two Executive Life subsidiaries in 1991, which had invested heavily in "junk bonds" and had sold a substantial number of structured settlement annuities, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted several model reforms including risk based capital (RBC) requirements. RBC requires insurance companies with higher amounts of risk to retain higher amounts of capital and surplus.

Prior to the Executive Life collapse, state insurance regulators had used fixed capital standards to monitor the financial solvency of insurance companies. Under fixed capital standards, depending upon the state and its line of business, insurance companies were required to maintain the same minimum amount of capital, regardless of the financial condition of the company.

Enacted in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, Dodd-Frank created changes in the United States financial regulatory system that impact all aspects of the financial services industry including insurance.

Among those changes, Dodd-Frank established the U.S. Treasury's Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and "vested FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector ...and to represent the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors [IAIS]".

Established in 1994, IAIS is "the international standard setting body responsible for developing and assisting in the implementation of principles, standards and other supporting material for the supervision of the insurance sector", according to its website.

IAIS' mission is "to promote effective and globally consistent supervision of the insurance industry in order to develop and maintain fair, safe and stable insurance markets for the benefit and protection of policyholders and to contribute to global financial stability."

The IAIS, whose members constitute nearly all of the world's insurance supervisors including the FIO and the NAIC, has committed to develop by 2016 and implement by 2019 the first-ever risk based global insurance capital standard (ICS).

The FIO published a report December 12, 2013 about "how to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States." The report concludes:

"[I]n some circumstances, policy goals of uniformity, efficiency, and consumer protection make continued federal involvement necessary to improve insurance regulation."

However, "insurance regulation in the United States is best viewed in terms of a hybrid model, where state and federal oversight play complementary roles and where the roles are defined in terms of the strengths and opportunities that each brings to improving solvency and market conduct regulation."

Dodd-Frank also requires the Federal Reserve to regulate and establish capital levels for nonbank companies designated as "systemically important". The Financial Stability Board (FSB),an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system, published a list of nine insurers on July 18, 2013 that it identified as “global systemically important”. The FSB list includes three United States insurers, AIG, MetLife and Prudential - each of which currently sells structured settlement annuities in the U.S. market.

Although these insurers insist they are nothing like banks in terms of insolvency risks, "regulators are more worried by non-insurance activities carried out by insurance groups than by their core activities", according to a July 27, 2013 article in The Economist titled "Global Systemic Insurers".

"But it is not clear", The Economist article adds, "which activities the FSB considers core and which it thinks are too racy for insurers. Regulators (and others) worry about some annuities, savings-like products which offer guaranteed returns to customers."

Dodd-Frank and Product Suitability Standards

In addition to the insurance regulatory and capital requirement changes discussed above, Dodd-Frank directed the SEC to study the need for a new, uniform fiduciary standard of care for broker-dealers and investment advisers and to apply such a uniform standard if it deemed necessary.

This study is potentially important for structured settlements and personal injury settlement planning because:

Both of these related markets currently lack uniform product suitability standards.

Although the SEC published a fiduciary standard study in January 2011, it has not yet published any related regulations. S2KM reviewed settlement planning product suitability standards in a four-part 2012 blog series.

April 08, 2013

Since it was founded in 2001, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) has defined itself as an alternative to the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA);
and defined its membership as more than plaintiff structured settlement
brokers. The resulting settlement planning business model features:

Structured
settlement annuities as a core funding product, but not as a singular
funding vehicle or product, for personal injury settlement plans; and

Settlement planners, as "claimant centric",
multi-professional, advisers who collaborate as a team and offer injury
victims and plaintiff attorneys complementary knowledge, skill sets and
work product.

To support and expand this settlement planning business model, SSP has developed and promoted:

Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners;

The Registry of Settlement Planners certification program; and

Annual educational conferences.

To improve and grow both the structured settlement and settlement planning markets, SSP President Charles Schellhas proposed the following strategy:

"Study and improve our business standards and practices.

"Develop "customer centric" solutions that help injury victims.

"Build collaborative business models by focusing on shared interests."

SSP recently announced the agenda for its 2013 Educational Conference which will take place May 5-7 in Las Vegas. Featured topics and speakers, organized by S2KM-suggested categories:

S2KM has attempted to organize Spring conference settlement planning topics by category
below without listing speakers. For additional information, check the
links above. Note: SSP has not yet published a complete conference
program description on its website.

Settlement Planning - General Issues

ASNP: Settlement Planning Panel Discussion

NAELA: Structured Settlements and Settlement Planning

Settlement Planning Participants

NSSTA

Mediator Panel

P&C Company Panel

NAELA: Representing Fiduciaries

SSP

Marketing to Plaintiff Attorneys

Ancillary Service Providers

Benefit Analysis Experts

Retirement Solutions for Plaintiff Attorneys

Partnering with Trust Counsel

Legislative Updates

ASNP: Affordable Care Act

NSSTA

Structured Settlement Legislative Update

Tax Reform Update

NAMSAP - MSA Legislative Update

NAELA: Special Needs Law Update

SSP: Affordable Care Act

Regulatory Updates

ASNP

Special Needs Trust (SNT) issues at the Social Security Administration

December 28, 2012

Compared with the structured settlement primary market, which was characterized by continuing sales declines in 2012, the related settlement planning market appears to have experienced growth and vitality in 2012.

The
primary evidence of this growth and vitality consisted of the
increasing number of educational conferences addressing settlement
planning topics during 2012. These included:

Various National Academy of Elder Law Attorney (NAELA) Conferences - of which S2KM attended the 2012 Ohio NAELA Unprogram.

One
of the challenges for measuring the growth of the settlement planning
market is the lack of market metrics. For example, despite continuing
market inquiries, S2KM has been unable to identify reliable national
market metrics for qualified settlement funds, special needs trusts,
settlement trusts, or Medicare set-aside arrangements.

Towers Watson Studies

The most valuable market research for settlement planning S2KM has identified has been the Annual Studies of United States Tort Costs published by Towers Watson (formerly Towers Perrin) since 1985. These studies:

Based upon Towers Watson's most recent 2011 Annual Study and utilizing Tower Watson's 2002 "best estimate" of payout percentages, S2KM estimates, that at least since 2006, more than $160 billion of United States tort costs annually have represented payments to injury victims and their attorneys.

Settlement Planning Issues

Among many settlement planning issues, S2KM viewed the following as the most strategically important during 2012:

October 08, 2012

Publisher Law Journal Press anticipates a late October 2012 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for Release 52 of "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J).
Online S2P2J will also be updated late October 2012 to include Release
52 materials. First published in 1986, S2P2J is co-authored and updated
semi-annually by Daniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) utilize S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Release 52 Highlights

Documenting a structured settlement is generally more complicated than the paper work involved with a lump sum settlement. Structured settlement documentation
can be further complicated depending upon the number of claimants and
annuities, whether plaintiff attorneys defer their fees, the need to
allocate damages, the degree of government benefit planning and the
growing integration of annuities and trusts into blended products.

Increasingly, therefore, the parties to a structured settlement agreement must endeavor to implement complex settlement plans,
using multiple funding devices, designed to address both the intent of
the parties and compliance and accountability requirements from the
public sector.

To assist structured settlement participants in achieving these objectives, S2P2J Release 52 features new sample structured settlement forms
with suggested alternate clauses for use as circumstances change. The
new sample forms include a model Structured Settlement Agreement, with a
Supplemental Schedule to more conveniently address funding details,
plus an optional Advisory Disclosure document specifying the
involvement, services and commission sharing (if any) of structured
settlement consultants used by the claimant, defendant and liability
insurer(s).

The Supplemental Schedule provides a useful, alternative format for specifying the funding details of the settlement, including:

The amount of up-front payments and their recipients.

The cost to purchase funding for the periodic payments.

A provision if the claimant’s attorney will receive periodic payments.

Allocations by the parties between tax-free and taxable payments.

Amount
of monthly payments and whether they will extend for the claimant’s
lifetime or for the greater of claimant’s lifetime or a set period of
time.

Designation of attorneys to be paid and at what address or to what account number.

Language used to permit or disallow later transfers of periodic payment rights.

To help explain these new structured settlement forms, the authors have added extensive related commentary discussing how to create enforceable structured settlement agreements that minimize the risk of post-closing issues.

Release 52 also features a comprehensive update of the Executive Life of New York (ELNY) liquidation plus new and/or expanded analyses for the following structured settlement industry issues and case developments:

September 30, 2012

Will Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) eventually replace structured settlements as the standard business model for resolving complex personal injury claims?

QSFs already represent the standard resolution technique for class action lawsuits - and provide advantages for both defendants and plaintiffs:

Defendants
not only obtain an immediate tax deduction and release, they also can
reduce their settlement planning costs and risks.

Plaintiffs can
conduct their settlement planning with a sum certain, using their own
advisers, free from the pressures of litigation, with unlimited time to
analyze and address tax, investment and government benefit issues.

QSFs can also be utilized to purchase tax-free structured settlements without any direct involvement by defendants.

The only opponents of QSFs,
for becoming the settlement planning standard for all complex
personal injury cases, appear to be advocates for the traditional claim
management structured settlement business model. These advocates include
liability insurers who attempt to direct claim dollars to their
affiliate life companies and defense brokers who fear the loss or
reduction of their annuity commissions.

Together, with political support from the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), these QSF opponentshave spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to limit both the scope of
QSFs and the expanded utilization of QSFs. Maintaining that structured
settlements are best created when both plaintiffs and defendants
actively participate, the QSF opponentsargue that broad approval of single-claimant 468B funds would undermine and diminish the use of structured settlements.

To sustain their argument, QSF opponents have organized and promoted a marketing and lobbying strategy that:

Ignores the IRC section 468B regulations that allow a QSF to be “established to resolve or satisfy one or more
contested or uncontested claims that have resulted or may result from
an event (or related series of events) that has occurred and that has
given rise to at least one claim asserting liability". (emphasis added)

Expands
their own definition of single claimant to encompass multiple single
event claims by family members, their attorneys and lien holders
including Medicare and Medicaid.

Fortunately for defendants and plaintiffs, utilization of QSFs (including single claimant QSFs) appears to be expanding
as more settlement planning stakeholders learn about the advantages of
QSFs and the professional QSF community of practice continues to grow.

Thatconclusion was S2KM's most important take away from the first QSF Symposium sponsored by Evolve Bank and Trust in Memphis, Tennessee on September 27-28, 2012.

Organized
to stimulate dialogue among QSF industry leaders and experts and to
help shape industry thinking on QSF issues, the first QSF Symposium was
restricted the 20 participants and included the following speakers and topics:

June 08, 2012

Following three 2012 settlement planning conferences, what have we learned, and what do we still need to know, before settlement planning can be recognized and analyzed as a business and professional market?

Descriptions of an Emergent Profession - Several conference speakers described settlement planning as a larger and more complex successor business and profession for structured settlements. For example, Jack Meligan stated: "SSP and its members have been promoting the practice of Settlement Planning as a more comprehensive solution for the financial issues facing personal injury victims and their families, and the profession of Settlement Planning as the next evolutionary step for members of the financial and legal communities that serve these injured Americans."

Government Benefit Updates - Integrating financial and insurance products with available government benefits represents one of the most important settlement planning priorities and requires effective interaction among multiple settlement planning participants. The conferences highlighted settlement planning roles for special needs attorneys as well as financial and insurance professionals. In addition, government benefit developments related to settlement planning were discussed including new requirements for liability Medicare Set-Asides (MSAs) and special needs pooled trusts as well as the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Tax Law Updatesand Improvements - In addition to integrating tort settlement proceeds with government benefits, settlement planning requires careful tax planning and specialized document drafting. The SSP conference featured Robert Wood and Jeremy Babener, who provided tax law tips and updates for settlement planners, as well as David Higgins, who proposed a potential tax law alternative to expand the use of structured settlement annuities in settlement planning.

Business Standards and Practices Discussions - The SSP's "Standards of Professional Conduct for Settlement Planners" (SSP Standards) represents a significant accomplishment and valuable industry resource. Professor Carl Pierce, who helped review and draft the SSP Standards, continued his analysis of related settlement planning issues as part of the Risk Settlement Planning Practicum. Karen Meyers, Director NSSTA's Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program, led a discussion about product suitability during the SSP Annual Meeting.

Unanswered Questions

Despite continuing educational progress, however, certain questions about the settlement planning market still need to be prioritized and addressed before settlement planning becomes a recognized business and profession. Among the most fundamental and important:

What types of settlements comprise the settlement planning market?

How large is the settlement planning market?

Is the settlement planning market increasing or decreasing?

What informational resources exist to help answer these questions?

Towers Watson Updates

Beginning with the last question, S2KM recommends the Towers Watson updates on "U.S. Tort Cost Trends" as a starting point for discussing the settlement planning market. Since 1985, Towers Watson (and its antecedent Towers Perrin) have published 15 such updates with the most recent 2011 update analyzing U.S. tort costs from 2010. Each study:

The tort costs in 2010 ($264.6 billion) were the highest in U.S. history and represent a 5.1% increase from $251.8 billion in 2009. Towers Watson estimates the 2010 U.S. tort system cost approximately $857 per person, versus $820 per person in 2009.

Towers Watson attributes the increase to the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Absent the costs from this event, Towers Watson estimates 2010 tort costs would have decreased 2.4% from 2009.

Since 1984, tort costs as a ratio of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) have ranged from a low of 1.70% to a high of 2.30% with relatively rapid increases in the ratio during the mid-1980s and early 2000s offset by intermittent and multi-year declines in the ratio.

Since 1950, even adjusting for inflation, increases in U.S. tort costs have far exceeded U.S. population growth. However, inflation-adjusted tort costs per capita were 16% lower in 2010 than in the peak year of 2004.

The weak U.S. economy has had a notable impact on commercial auto insurance claims. 2010 tort costs were the lowest since 2000 and 19% lower than 2004.

Although medical malpractice costs have increased at an average annual rate of 9.7%, versus 7.5% for all other tort costs, since 1975, growth in medical malpractice costs from 2005 to 2010 averaged only 0.3% per year.

Identifies "fracking" (a natural gas drilling process that extracts natural gas from shale by using water and chemicals which could result in contaminated drinking water) as a new area of litigation where defense costs are beginning to mount.

Note: Towers Watson discontinued this latter portion of its analysis in 2002, according to Russ Sutter, a Tillinghast principal and actuary who directs the Towers Watson study, "primarily because we lack reliable information from plaintiff attorneys". These percentages therefore represent Towers Watson's "best estimate" in 2002.

S2KM assumptions: lacking alternative estimates of tort cost payment categories and percentages, Towers Watson's "best estimate" in 2002 for 2001 U.S. tort costs continues to represent the most reliable annual analysis of U.S. tort dollars paid to claimants and their attorneys.

ASNP is one of three national associations of attorneys, the others being the Special Needs Alliance (SNA) and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), whose members engage in special needs planning. The primary difference between special needs planning and settlement planning is that special needs planning includes clients whose disabilities result from many causes including but not limited to personal injury or workers compensation accidents.

One of the highlights of the ASNP conference was a special introductory program titled "Basics of Special Needs Planning" presented by Fuller and two other nationally renowned special needs attorneys, Kevin Urbatsch and David Lillesand. This program addressed the core components of special needs planning (including the role of structured settlements), explained public benefits, and discussed the basics of special need trust (SNT) administration.

Eric Skidmore - Skidmore, a Supervisor in the Office of SSI and Representative Payee Policy at the Social Security Administration (SSA), provided a "Social Security Update" during which he reconfirmed an unpublished SSA position supporting what Reixach reported - i.e. the SSA believes the existence of the secondary market renders structured settlement annuities "available resources" that potentially disqualify special needs trusts beneficiaries from receiving Medicaid.

One glaring omission that characterizes most national structured settlement and settlement planning conferences is the surprising lack of attention paid to real life problems andissues experienced by persons with disabilities and their families. The 2012 ASNP conference emphasized these real life problems and issues with three valuable presentations:

Annette Hines and Linda Brown - Hines and Brown, both special needs attorneys whose families include persons with disabilities, spoke about "Transition Planning" - the change in status for disabled persons from behaving as a student to assuming emergent adult roles in the community. Subtopics discussed: a "Day in My Life" from a parents' perspective; myths about special needs planning; transition agencies; disability support systems; selecting trustees and guardians; role of guardians; personal budgets; housing options including Section 8 qualification and the rent vs.buy decisions; plus group home issues including expense sharing.

Vincent Russo and Michael Amoruso - Russo and Amoruso presented a series of video vignette interviews of families with disabled persons in their discussion titled "Creating the Right Plan for the Right Situation." Each of the interviews originally appeared on the television show "Family Comes First" for which Russo serves as a host. After the ASNP audience watched each interview, Russo and Amoruso asked questions and offered observations to help ASNP conference attendees learn to differentiate individuals and families on the basis of such issues as: independence; information needs and overloads; life visions; and legal capacity. They emphasized the need to make special needs trusts responsive to specific family situations.

Harry Margolis and Jerry Hulick - Margolis and Hulick discussed a special needs case study from a financial perspective that emphasized the role of life insurance. Note: although life insurance companies feature prominently in both the special needs and structured settlement markets, there appears to be almost no overlap among agents distributing their products even though both markets focus on disabled individuals and their families.

Another glaring omission to date at national structured settlement and settlement planning conferences has been the lack of educational inquiry about how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [Affordable Care Act (ACA) - aka Health Care Reform] impacts their customers, their products and their traditional business models. The justification for this educational omission may be the uncertainty resulting from the current constitutional review of the ACA by the United States Supreme Court.

Fortunately, the ASNP has not been paralyzed educationally by this constitutional uncertainty. At the ASNP 2011 Annual Meeting, Cynthia Barrett offered her introductory analysis of how Health Care Reform impacts persons with disabilities. At the ASNP 2012 Annual Meeting, David Lillesand discussed how the prohibition against "pre-existing condition" exclusions mandated by the ACA (already in effect in 22 states) impacts special needs legal practice generally and self-settled (first party) special needs trusts specifically.

In summary, based upon his experience in Florida, where the ACA's prohibition against pre-existing exclusions currently exists, Lillesand believes:

The need for self-settled (first party) special needs trusts has decreased (except when a beneficiary requires long term institutional care) because the ACA provides better insurance options than Medicaid for many persons with pre-existing medical conditions including personal injury victims.

Existing self-settled (first party) special needs trusts should be reviewed, in the context of the ACA's prohibition against pre-existing condition exclusions and available medical insurance options, and in many cases terminated.

Damages for future medical costs in personal injury lawsuits could be reduced assuming the premium costs of newly available insurance premiums become admissible in proving and/or defending damages.

Apropos to transition planning for persons with disabilities and terminating special needs trusts, Travis Finchum, Fuller and Urbatsch spoke about "Trust Transitions" - what to do when your bank trustee doesn't want you anymore or you don't want them? Their subtopics included: "the dark side of pooled trusts"; security of funds managed by individual trustees and pooled trusts; trust protectors; questions to ask potential private professional trustees; fiduciary certification and standards; plus discussion and analysis of trust provisions and revision issues.

To help ASNP attendees improve their legal practice, Steve Riley addressed "Key Strategies for Growing Your Practice and One Sure Fire Way to Kill It". The killer, according to Riley: "Inertia - which is easy; but change is hard" - which is also a good lesson for structured settlement and settlement planning stakeholders.

Congratulations to Chairperson Michele Fuller, the speakers and exhibitors for another outstanding ASNP educational conference. For S2KM's reporting about prior ASNP educational conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.